Template talk:USS
Purpose Is this really needed since all we have to do is type "USS Whatever"? --From Andoria with Love 07:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC) :Not just USS Whatever, but [[USS Whatever|USS Whatever]] to format the desired link. :On further review, this particular template could be truncated even further to , increasing usability without losing any functionality. :A second variable might even be added to cover the more esoteric article names. – Kv1at3485 08:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC) ::The truncation you suggested makes the template much more useful. I think that template is a good idea. Picard(o) 10:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC) :And might I add that cross references to ships in the fashion targeted by this template are prevalent throughout the wiki. Thus, the simplification allowed by this template will benefit a wide selection of articles. The same can be said for the ShipClass template. – Kv1at3485 08:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC) ::Ahh, I see. Very good then. :) --From Andoria with Love 10:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Expansion-Additional template suggestion There's another option I feel could be added, where use the starships name appears rather then "USS Whatever", as I notice in some articles, in certain forms, the "USS" almost breaks the form. In an example, take the mirror universe episodes of , in which the is consistently refereed to as "The Defiant" and "starship Defiant". Yes, I know this is done in other cases as well, hence my suggestion, and basically the idea is, either add some sort of option to this template to make it so (which is what Wikipedia does), or: make a second template titled something like "Template:USS1" and copy this code over, wherein, there is one, single difference (and this is what Memory Beta does). The "USS" isn't a part of the display/descriptive text, through this format, the text is utilized in the exact same way, and displays in the same way with that one exception (So you still enter USS into the template and all of that). I feel this would add something to Memory Alpha while providing a chance to keep the links formatted the same way (I've seen articles here and there that forgo the use of this template to do what my suggestion will do). After writing all of that, for ease of use to new editors (and current ones, although this all in one system would be similar to the Film template), if this is done, then creating a new template works best, IMO. --Terran Officer 19:41, March 6, 2011 (UTC) :It could (in theory) be done more easily and in a more versatile manner than that. I'll give it some thought. The big issue is really that most writers of episode summaries are not very strong writers and do not know how to refer to things appropriately. :) -- sulfur 00:34, March 7, 2011 (UTC) Well, if it becomes an issue, I'm sure other users can offer some help in that regard, but I was thinking the option would be good to use. Either way, I'm curious to see what you could come up with as far as this goes. --Terran Officer 00:42, March 7, 2011 (UTC) ::If this is considered necessary, I think the best way would be to add a very explicit formatting option like , and tie the use of that formatting option to a maintenance category where its use can be checked. As sulfur stated, most of the time, use of a starship name without prefix is just informal writing that should probably be changed, anyway. -- Cid Highwind 11:20, March 7, 2011 (UTC) Move suggestion May I suggest moving this to Template:Uss instead? It's a minor quibble, but with my suggested move anyone entering the template wouldn't have to capitalize it at all instead of capitalizing all three letters. That's how it is over at STEU. --Kevin W.•Talk to me 10:00, December 25, 2012 (UTC) :You're free to create a redirect and see how that works out, but the template itself shouldn't be moved because the correct formatting is "USS", not "uss". Templates shouldn't encourage people to incorrectly format things, and it takes more mental effort to correctly use "USS" where there is no link if it's "uss" where there is one, and vice versa. If anything, STEU is doing itself a disservice by having their template like that. - 13:00, December 25, 2012 (UTC) ::I agree with Archduk. I'm not persuaded by the reasoning offered for the proposed change, and I see little reason to change it in general. 31dot (talk) 23:19, December 25, 2012 (UTC) I think you misunderstand what I mean. I don't propose to change the template itself. It would still display as "USS Whatever", but the template would be instead of . Quite frankly, I don't see how simplifying it does a "disservice." --Kevin W.•Talk to me 22:46, December 27, 2012 (UTC) :I understood you, though it seems you didn't understand me. The USS Enterprise was attacked by the . :Having the template in lowercase only breaks, or stops the formation of, the habit of capitalizing "USS" every time, which is how it's correctly formatted and needs to typed when this template isn't used. Removing the shift key may reduce the the total number of keys used, but that's not simplifying it, it's making it harder overall because you're encouraging bad formatting while introducing a second rule for typing "USS". - 23:25, December 27, 2012 (UTC) Well, that's why I made this a suggestion instead of just moving it myself. I respectfully disagree with your low assessment of the editors' capabilities. I wouldn't make that mistake and I doubt 99% of the major editors on here would either. --Kevin W.•Talk to me 03:08, December 28, 2012 (UTC) :::Another reason for "USS" being better than "uss" is the fact that it makes the wikicode itself more readable and more similar to the resulting text: just looks like , whereas is different. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 10:15, December 28, 2012 (UTC) Well, it's clear I'm on the losing side of this discussion. Thanks for hearing me out, though. --Kevin W.•Talk to me 04:25, January 5, 2013 (UTC)